IN THIS BRIEF volume the two most vital and interesting molecules present in every living thing on earth, namely nucleic acids
and proteins, will be examined in some detail in plain language.
The reader will also have a chance to become familiar with a
few simple key rules of probability reasoning. These will then
be combined to determine if it is possible that such molecules
might possibly have had their origin in natural processes of
evolution. These main subjects will lead to many related ones
in biology.

DNA MOLECULES are
found in three forms. In
each the DNA consists of
two twisted strands that
form a double helix, or
spiral; the strands are connected, as by the rungs of
a ladder, by paired subunits (nucleotides) whose
particular sequence constitutes the genetic code. The
basic form is linear. This
is shown in (a). If the ends
are joined through one
strand, the structure is a
nicked duplex loop (b). If
both strands are joined,
the structure is an intact
loop, usually found in the
supercoiled form (c).

Such revelations have made the whole field of biology more
popular with the layman. Some of the suspense and thrill of
discovery have been transmitted to the public by several of
the group of scientists who participated in the exploration leading to the original breakthrough. One of them, John C. Kendrew,

Introduction 21

wrote the following in the preface of his excellent book, The
Thread of Life:

formation of DNA and protein molecules: What is the chance
that they might have become arranged and organized, unaided
by intelligence? The odds, we will discover, are astonishing.
Do not be discouraged if you are not familiar with these two
subjects, namely probability theory, and the major living moleculesDNA
and proteins. There will be sufficient introduction
to them in the chapters that follow.

Science and Philosophy of Science

Although many do not realize it, the pursuit of science is
well-nigh impossible in the absence of a philosophy of science, or
an overview of what science is all about. Distinguished physicist David Bohm wrote, Metaphysics is fundamental to every
branch of science. By metaphysics he refers to ones basic
assumptions which attempt to explain the real nature of things.
He continued:

which is indispensable to our general mental functioning.10
There are two major philosophies of science current today.
The one heard most often is the essentially materialistic belief
that all phenomena can be explained by physics and chemistry
without resorting to anything supernatural. The other major
philosophy of science was expressed well by Wernher von Braun,
the U.S. missile scientist who pioneered our moon rockets, a
physicist by education, when he said in a 1969 interview:

In that statement, von Braun went outside what is ordinarily
considered the domain of science. If we wonder if he was
being unscientific to speak thus, we need but reflect a moment.
Lets leave out the idea of anything supernatural while we
consider the following hypothetical situation: Suppose it is
discovered that some unexpected influencelike, say, a mysterious
radiationpervades our material universe. The evidence,
let us assume, shows that this effect flows from a cause which
can never itself be precisely measured or directly observed.
Nevertheless, this cause has a real and concrete influence upon
events and laws of our physical-chemical universe, an effect
that is considerable.
It is clear that to ignore such a fact would keep one from
being able fully to understand physics or any related science,
since the cause that is involved is intimately related to the
way things are in the material world. Even though that cause
were beyond full scientific investigation, it would have to be
taken into consideration in order for us to have a correct comprehension
of anything. It would be artificial and restrictive
to deprive any scientist from contemplating anything that is
outside his field if it affects the subject of his study. To place
such limitations would itself be unscientific as just seen from
the postulated situation. (It is clear today that we likewise cannot draw absolute boundaries between scientific disciplines, e.g.,
between physics and chemistry, without limiting knowledge.)
A correct world view or general outlook is essential for
accurate scientific comprehension in many cases. Consider how

24 Evolution: Possible or Impossible?

a scientist who believes the earth is flat will be limited by his
outlook. When he interprets experiments or makes scientific
observations, the results will be colored by that erroneous
notion. Much of his work will be invalidated, because his overview
is not in line with reality. It may be even more of a hindrance in
science if one fails to consider whether there is design
in the universe. It is therefore logical in the introduction of
our subject to take up this matter of a philosophy of life which
will be adequate for scientist and layman alike because it is
in tune with the real universe. In so doing, we should open-mindedly
consider anything which may be deeply involved in
the realities of our material universe and its laws.
In that view, religion is not necessarily involved at all in
leading one to consider creation as a scientific theory to account
most fully for what one sees in the universe about him. (If a
person does arrive at such a conclusion, however, the only logical
sequel is to honor the Creator who could engineer such a cosmos, and to seek to know more about the plan involved.)
There apparently exists in the minds of some individual
scientists who do not share Dr. von Brauns outlook a reluctance
to consider evidence beyond the substances and forces which
can be examined in our laboratories or by scientific observation in a materialistic sense, and this results in nervousness
about anything which might be called religious in any sense.
Similarly, there is a corresponding uncomfortableness on the
part of some who cannot accept the materialistic overview with
regard to naturalistic evolution.
Reasonable individuals of either viewpoint have no cause for
alarm if their honest desire is to follow where truth leads. Ones
philosophy of science (and philosophy of life) must be based
solidly on what is true, insofar as that can be determined, or
he is in for recurrent uneasiness and unhappiness, not to mention more
serious consequences which may follow building on
a false foundation. (Consider, for example, the consequences if
von Braun and others had used incorrect formulas in calculating
moon orbits as a result of some departure from truth because of
wrong metaphysical assumptions.)
In view of what has been said, it can be seen that the research
and writings and conclusions of any scientist are likely from time
to time to mirror the overview he accepts. Although not always
stated explicitly, the philosophy of a biologist, for example,

Introduction 25

usually can be discovered from his writings. (It will not be
difficult in this book, in that respect, to discern the authors esteem
for science in general, his high regard for the scientific method,
and an enthusiasm for widening the scope of present scientific
knowledge. The overview will also be easily evident, since it is
a philosophy of science which has proved most exhilarating and
productive of a spirit of scientific inquiry.)
Before going ahead into the study of DNA, proteins, and
probability, it may be worthwhile to look briefly at how an individual
might go about building an adequate philosophy of science,
which is part of ones philosophy of life or general outlook. For
one thing, any viewpoint which leaves one in perplexity is
undesirable.

As a tentative conclusion before going on in our study of
science, we may say that the two main objective sources from
which we may draw information are nature and the Bible.
Ideas from other people and from our own reasoning may be
helpful also, if derived logically from these primary sources.
Both nature and the Bible offer help if we seek answers on
the question of the origin of life. It might be noted in passing
that the origin of life is a subject which is beyond the reach
of observational and experimental science except for speculation based on
present conditions. The subject has, nonetheless,
occupied a great amount of the time and attention of many
biologists and other scientists because of its interesting nature,
and because some of them perhaps would prefer a naturalistic
explanation.
With regard to the Bible, we live at a time when a great
many people have not arrived at a settled faith regarding its
accuracy and supernatural inspiration. This makes it impossible
for them to begin their search with complete confidence in its
authority as to truth on which to base their philosophy. It is
interesting that the Bible itself recognizes that such individuals
need a more tangible basis on which to start their structure of
belief.
No one is likely to consider a Supreme Being in his
philosophy of life, or in his philosophy of science, who does not believe
there actually is a God, of course. Anyone who comes to God
must believe that he exists, says the Bible itself, in the book
of Hebrews.15
By sensibly observing nature, one can find assurance that there
is, indeed, a God. Notice again the statement by Wernher von
Braun, perhaps the worlds most outstanding missile scientist,
quoted above on page 23. It accords perfectly with the following
from the Bible:

For all that may be known of God lies plain before their
eyes; indeed God himself has disclosed it to them. His invisible
attributes, that is to say his everlasting power and deity,
have been visible, ever since the world began, to the eye of
reason, in the things he has made (Romans 1:19, 20 NEB).

Observation of nature, then, is the logical point of beginning

28 Evolution: Possible or Impossible?

for those who feel they cannot take anything for granted without concrete
evidence. One should keep in mind that it is just
the beginning, however. Nature cant take us all the way that
we need to go. It may, nevertheless, lead to some knowledge
of God and to an elementary faith. Sincere, open-minded individuals
are then likely to consider the Bible as a source of more
information about him, since it claims to be divine revelation
and has reliable credentials. It seems logical that natures God
would give us a more complete revelation such as the Bible
provides. The Bible and nature seem to go well together, and
both may be essential to a satisfying and full-orbed philosophy
of life. (Interestingly, one occasionally finds quotations or
references to it even in scientific treatises, at the most unexpected
places.)
It may be objected that it is being taken for granted that
one will eventually believe in God if he is a reasonable individual.
While this objection may in part be valid, perhaps the
reader, if he happens to find difficulty in such a belief, may
tolerate the assumption for the moment, and we will soon be
into the more concrete subjects mentioned at the start.
As we pursue our quest for a meaningful and true
philosophy of life by looking first at nature, there is a major barrier
to any acceptance of belief in a Supreme Being. It is the widely
held doctrine of evolution. The word evolution is used in
many ways, so we will need to define it as used in this book.
As employed herein, evolution may be defined as
the belief that all living things, including man, resulted by natural
changes from lifeless matter, with no supernatural intervention
involved.16 This is the common
current understanding of the
term in its general use by most biologists, though of course there
are many exceptions. Like many other words, this one has numerous
meanings. It will be helpful to remember this definition
for this book.

Are Evolution and Science Synonymous?

Textbooks, literature, and the tacit acceptance expressed by
seemingly almost everyone would give the impression that evolution and science are one.
Perhaps you, like most people, do not find it possible or convenient

Introduction 29

to study extensively in all the fields of science to find
out firsthand what is true. If you are constantly told in effect
that science accepts evolution as a fact, you may naturally ask
yourself, Who am I to question science?
Many who would like to believe in God or the Bible find
themselves in the position of Dr. James Orr, a noted theologian
of the late 1800s. He seemed to have been convinced that
the scientists had proved evolution to be true and that he had
to do the best he could with it.17
A number of authors, writing as believers in God, seem to
be in the same positiontrying earnestly (some even desperately)
to mold Bible teachings to fit the latest evolutionary assumptions.
Many materialists scoff at this as an impossible task. More
logically, it turns out to be a case of either-or rather than
evolution and the Bible.
Still, many religious leaders have tackled the unenviable job
of trying to work out a compromise, simply because here
appeared to be no alternative. Unwilling to throw overboard
all ties with religion, they find a temporary shelter in theistic
evolution or some other type that lets God in on the process.
While this may at first appear to have the advantage of making a person
acceptable in both camps, it leaves him a citizen
of neither, when the matter is examined.
Some otherwise great Christian thinkers have taken this
adaptive position on evolution, believing that scientists have really
proved evolution, and, of course, one cant argue with facts.
Fortunately, we live in a time when more has just recently
become known. Recent discoveries in biology make it clear that
there was no reason to stretch the interpretation of Scriptures,
after all.
At the moment, it can be noted that it would be difficult to
keep confidence in any of the Bible if it is mistaken about origins.
At the least, it would then seem to be merely a human book,
containing some good perhaps, but not standing as the authoritative revelation
of God, if it is wrong on that subject.
Later on, we will refer to an excellent study which examines
theistic evolution. Meanwhile, let us first, however, proceed
on the assumption of either-oreither the Bible account of
creation is true, or evolution is true.

30 Evolution: Possible or Impossible?

Is it proper, someone may ask, to compare
the Bible. account of creation with a scientific theory like evolution?
Not all scientists agree as to evolutions scientific credentials. For
example, R. Clyde McCone, professor of anthropology at California State University
in Long Beach, wrote in 1973:

There are no data for evolution. Proponents use the idea
of evolution to create or generate data by appropriating the
synchronic data of science in an effort to use that very synchronic order
to explain how it came into existence.

Dr. McCone went on to show logically the truth of his assertion, and concluded as follows:

Could chance account for life on earth through natural
processes, or is it evidently designed? If designed, does that mean
the individual human being (whether scientist or layman) has
some kind of responsibility to the Designer?

It Is Now Possible to Be Sure

There is now a quick way to an accurate answer to this
question. A person need not wait for years of study to discover
whether life could have begun from nonliving matter by natural
processes. It is not even necessary to build on the opinions of
others, in becoming certain on this matter.
One also does not need to become expert in various fields of
science, in order for his conclusions to be on solid footing that
will be soundly logical and valid. The worth of such personal
certainty is easily apparent, and may seem almost too good to
be attainable. It will soon become clear how it is possible.
We should pause to note that there is also possible, as the
reader may happen to know, a valid spiritual type of assurance
on such matters as the existence of God. What we are discussing here,
however, is the assurance arrived at by considering
objective evidence. This is especially important in this scientific
age. It can serve to encourage or to reinforce any spiritual

Introduction 31

assurance one may already have, and it is in line with the Bible,
as we have seen.
The reader is presumed to be a serious searcher for truth,
either for his own assurance on the subject of this book, or in
order to reassure others more effectively. If you are still in school
getting formal education, you may find this prospective shortcut to
certainty exciting and understandable. Because of what
that certainty can mean to a person, it may also prove useful
to those of all ages who are not satisfied with superficial answers.
Many Christians, for example, feel a need to know whether
they are on scientifically solid ground when they repose confidence in
Christ and in the Bibleat least to know that true
science is not contrary to this.
It will be evident to the reader as he progresses that the main
approach suggested in this volume will stand on its own merits.
Its logic is self-evident, not depending upon who says it.
It will also be susceptible to any degree of further
study or experimentation that one may choose. An open, inquiring mind,
willingness to think and persistence are all one needs to arrive
at certainty.
It is fortunate that during the past few years several highly
intelligent scientists who are devout Christians have written on
evolution. Men of extensive education and scientific background
have dealt with many phases of the subject quite effectively.
Some of these authors were naturalistic evolutionists themselves
before conversion to their present faith in Christ as Savior. Their
writings are in contrast to the approach mentioned earlier in
which some have tried to mold Christianity to fit evolution, although
the motives of many of the latter may have been admirable. We will
be recommending some of the more excellent books later on.

Why This Particular Book?

The new and rewarding approach we have been mentioning
is now possible because of two things. Some of the recent dramatic
discoveries in biology can now be combined with the
principles of probability to give a rewarding new advantage
to the searcher after truth on this matter. In this study, we will
merely introduce the reader to this combination. Together, we
will apply it to a few interesting subjects. The idea can then
be used on your own in countless ways when pondering the

Purpose: To invite attention to evidence which will enable
the reader to arrive at the certainty that materialistic evolution
cannot be true. To promote positive appreciation of the Creator,
leading one (as the Creators conditions are met) to a new
awareness and rich meaning in science and life-meaning which
is tragically missing from the barren land of naturalistic evolution.
Main Approach: (1) To learn the two first
principles of probability theory, and to examine the interesting structure
of proteins and DNA molecules, and the translation system from
DNA to proteins, (2) To discover that natural selection could

34 Evolution: Possible or Impossible?

offer no help toward the origin of these complex molecules, such
that, if intelligent design is ruled out, only chance is left as
the means for producing such order. (3) To use probability
calculations which lead to discovery of the practical impossibility of
the origin by chance of usable sequences for proteins
or DNA. The first ten chapters are devoted to this main approach.
Removal of Obstacles: Two difficulties remaining in the path
to certainty are these: (1) Why do so many scientists accept
evolution? and (2) What about the convincing-sounding proofs
of evolution that are widely heralded? These are dealt with
briefly but definitely in chapters 11 and 12 and the reader is
referred to more extensive works on these subjects.
Positive Given: To remove a negative and
erroneous philosophy is a prerequisite if a positive philosophy of life is to be built
in its place. To stop after finding that evolution could not be
true would leave a vacuum. Chapter 13 points out a few of the
exciting evidences in nature that add to the understanding of
life and that encourage appreciation for the exalted privilege
of being a conscious and rational part of such an amazing universe.
Finally chapter 14 reviews briefly the probability calculations made by
others from different directions and ties together
the theme, to connect it with the overall purpose the Creator
may have had for His human creatures as revealed in nature
(and in the Bible).
Three Kinds of Use: (1) General reading by individuals, from
a variety of backgrounds, who are consciously uncertain about
evolution. (A large percentage of those who have had some
exposure to religion, as well as many who question evolution
from the standpoint of contrary scientific evidence, are unsettled
in varying degrees on this subject.) Serious students who would
be unsatisfied with a superficial treatment or the undocumented
views of any mere author may find this approach especially rewarding.
Readers may become convinced by verifying for themselves much of the reasoning
and calculations without the necessity for specialized advanced study.
(2) Use by individuals or groups who disbelieve evolution
already, but who wish to increase their confidence and information in order to help others more effectively.
(3) Possible textbook or collateral source material for courses
such as: (a) Evolution in the Light of Probability Theory
or (b) Proteins, DNA, and Probability Theory.

Introduction 35

About Quotations and References: When any author
or researcher is quoted favorably in this book, this of course does
not necessarily mean that we are encouraging the reader to
agree with everything else he says or believes.22 Excellent writers
on some subjects may possibly be quite mistaken on others.
Chapter 11 explains in detail how it has come about that many
otherwise fine and sincere people have been caught up in the
evolutionary trend for unscientific and fallacious reasons. (Most
of the references are merely to document the source of the data
used, as is customary in writing on scientific subjects.)
It should be quite clear, too, that we claim no special knowledge or insights, but are merely pointing out evidence that is
available and testable by anyone. The reader should accept only
what is provably or logically sound.
The road to certainty is longer for some than others,
depending on background and starting point. A short pamphlet might
suffice for many. For others, however, to deal briefly with all
the facets involved in achieving real assurance calls for more
extensive treatment. This book offers a shortcut in the sense
that in one comparatively short volume there is included the
essence of a path by which open-minded individuals may likely
be able to find that certainty which they desire. There is so
much more helpful material that might have been included
that the authors most difficult task was condensing even to this
length.
In order to limit the amount of technical data in the main
text, we have made much use of footnotes. For the non-casual
reader, some of these footnotes will contain research information that
may prove valuable as well as references where further
details may be obtained. Others may prefer to bypass the
footnotes except those which explain items in which they are
interested. The dual purpose of the book is to assist in making
access to certainty available to both the nontechnical reader and
for the student or searching inquirer who wishes to study the
subject more deeply.

5 Throughout the book,
whenever we use the words billion and trillion, it will be
with the value given to it in Canada and the U.S.A., where a billion is a
thousand million (109) and a trillion is a million million
(1012). In Great Britain and Australia, a billion
is a million million, and a trillion is a million times
larger than the American trillion.

13 A study of human nature might
lead us to expect this to issue in certain
unhappy social consequences on the part of at least a percentage of the
population. There is a story of a French agnostic of a past century
who was discussing his philosophy with guests of like mind.
Dont let the servants overhear us, he
cautioned, or they will steal the silverware.

15 Hebrews 11:6 (from the translation
known as The New English Bible, hereafter abbreviated NEB.
If no translation is indicated, the reference is from the King James Version.)

16 This definition substantially
follows one given in the textbook, Biology, A
Search for Order in Complexity, Ed.: John N. Moore and Harold Schultz Slusher
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 93.

20 The research data and
understanding of processes reported herein share the
same risk of aging which is common to all writings of science in these days of
fast-paced unfolding of knowledge in biology, physics, and space
exploration. As more perfect information is learned, the partial
knowledge is outdated. On the other hand, the general principles
we will learn in applying probability reasoning are ageless.